The parties have filed a Stipulation of Facts, proposed Conclusions of Law and
a Recommendation for Sanctions. The Respondent has waived certain
procedural rights, including the right to an evidentiary hearing. The
panel accepts the stipulated facts and recommendations and orders that
Respondent be publicly reprimanded for a lengthy delay in closing an estate and
for failure to communicate with his clients, in violation of Rule 1.3 and Rule
1.4(a) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct in effect prior to
September 1, 2009, and Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a)(3) and
Rule 1.4(a)(4), which were effective thereafter.

Facts

Respondent is
currently employed as the Assistant Clerk of the Vermont House of
Representatives. This job does not involve the practice of law. Respondent also
has a small solo law practice, which he operates from his home. He was admitted
to practice in Vermont in June of 2003.

Francis F. Sayers died in November of 2004. His sister, Louise Thresher, was
named executrix of his estate. The estate was opened in the Washington District
Probate Court in February of 2005. At the time, Ms. Thresher was represented by
Attorney Peter Young. In the summer of 2006, Mr. Young left the practice
of law for another job. He referred the Sayers Estate to Respondent. At that
time, Respondent was renting office space from Mr. Young.

By letter dated July 21, 2006, Mr. Young informed the Probate Court that
Respondent had assumed responsibility for the Sayers Estate. At the time that
Respondent took over the file, an accounting was due. Respondent started to
prepare the account, but did not complete it. During that time, Respondent had
to take time off from work to attend to matters related to the unexpected
deaths of both his father and grandfather.

By letter dated December 19, 2006, the Probate Court asked Respondent to file
either an Accounting or a Status Report. Respondent received the letter but
filed nothing.

By letter dated
March 9, 2007 the Probate Court informed Ms. Thresher that an accounting was
past due and asked her to file the appropriate paperwork by April 9, 2007.
Respondent received a copy of this letter, but did not file an accounting.

On September 18,
2008, the Probate Court issued a Notice to Appear in which Ms. Thresher and
Respondent were instructed to appear on October 20, 2008. Ms. Thresher
had been injured in an automobile accident in the summer of 2008 and, as a
result, was unable to attend the hearing. Respondent informed the court and the
hearing was postponed and never rescheduled.

By late August of
2010, Respondent had yet to complete an accounting. For several years, he had
not responded to phone calls and messages from Ms. Thresher or her sister,
Phyllis Maxham. Ms. Thresher and Ms. Maxham consulted Attorney Peter Carter. Mr. Carter called
Respondent on August 31, 2010. He explained that Ms. Thresher and Ms. Maxham were extremely frustrated by Respondent's failure to
respond to repeated telephone messages. Respondent promised to send the file to
Mr. Carter immediately.

Respondent did not
promptly transmit the file. Mr. Carter called Respondent on September 3, 2010.
Respondent informed Mr. Carter that some of his electronic files had been
corrupted, and that he was working on restoring them. He said he hoped to have
the file restored by the next week.

Mr. Carter and
Respondent spoke again on September 21, 2010. Respondent had yet to send the
file to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter asked Respondent to prepare a First and Final Accounting.
Respondent agreed to do so. By October 22, 2010, Respondent had not prepared or
filed the accounting, nor had he sent any paperwork to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter
sent Respondent an e-mail expressing his frustration. He followed up with
telephone messages. Respondent did not reply to Mr. Carter's e-mail or
telephone messages.

In fact, in
late-September of 2010, Respondent's basement had flooded. The Sayers file was
in the basement and was destroyed. Disciplinary Counsel spoke with Respondent's
insurance agent, who reported that he had visited Respondent's home office. The
agent confirmed the fact of the flood, and told Disciplinary Counsel that
Respondent's basement had incurred significant damage.

On November 12, 2010,
Mr. Carter received from the Probate Court a copy of the file in the Sayers
Estate. Over the next few days, Mr. Carter prepared the First and Final
Accounting of the Sayers Estate, all the necessary consents, and met with Ms.
Thresher and Ms. Maxham to have them sign various the
documents. Mr. Carter filed the accounting and all necessary documents on
November 16, 2010.

The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct were amended effective September 1,
2009. The old rules apply to Respondent's conduct, or lack thereof, between
July of 2006, and August 31, 2009. The new rules apply from September 1, 2009,
to November of 2010.

Rule 1.3 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, which was unchanged by
the revision, provides that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.” The Comment to this rule in the
2009 Amendment states:

Perhaps no professional shortcoming
is more widely resented than procrastination. A client's interests often can be
adversely affected by the passage of time with the change of condition; in
extreme instances, as when a lawyer overlooks the statute of limitations, the
client's legal position may be destroyed. Even when the client's
interests are not affected in substance, however, unreasonable delay can cause
the client needless anxiety and undermine confidence in the lawyer's
trustworthiness.V.R.P.C. 1.3 Comment [3].
Emphasis added.

Respondent took no steps to complete the Sayers Estate and delayed as well in
the transfer of the file to Mr. Carter. This conduct violates Rule 1.3.

Rule 1.4 of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct deals with client
communication. Prior to September 1, 2009, Rule 1.4 (a) required a lawyer to
“keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information.” This rule was amended in
2009. As amended, the Rule requires a lawyer to “keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the matter,” V.R.P.C. 1.4(a)(3),
and to “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information….”
V.R.P.C. 1.4(a)(4). Respondent violated both the
earlier and later provisions by his complete failure to respond to his client's
and Mr. Carter's reasonable requests for information.

Sanction

Failure to act with reasonable diligence and failure to reasonably communicate
with clients are among the most often violated of the Vermont Rules of
Professional Conduct. In cases where there are no other violations and no
significant harm to clients, the sanction generally is private admonition or
public reprimand. The parties have recommended that we impose public
reprimand in this case. We find this recommendation in accord with
previous cases involving of violations of Rules 1.3 and/or 1.4.

There are several factors that affect the severity of the sanction; the number
of clients involved, the duration of the neglect, the injury or potential
injury to the client or to the legal system, and the presence of aggravating
and mitigating factors.

Admonition has been imposed where the delay was short and the only injury the
client frustration. In re PRB Decision No. 131 (May 2010).
In that case, the attorney delayed five months in providing a title opinion
after a real estate closing.

Admonition has
also been imposed where the neglect and failure to communicate were of longer
duration, but where there were substantial mitigating factors. In re
PRB Decision No. 137 (Feb. 2011). In that case, the neglect was for a
period of two years. There was no harm other than the client’s
frustration, and there was a substantial mitigating factor. Specifically,
the attorney suffered from a medical problem and had decided to terminate his
practice since the stress of practice was affecting his health.

Admonition was
also imposed in In re PRB Decision No. 125
(Sept. 2009). There, the time period in question was several years. There
was potential for injury but, again, there were several mitigating factors.

Public reprimand was imposed in the case of In re Buckley, PRB Decision
No. 118 (Dec. 2008). In that case, the attorney neglected more than one
matter for a client. Although the Hearing Panel was unable to determine if
there was any actual injury beyond the client’s frustration and discouragement
with the legal system, there was the potential for injury in a missed
opportunity for a child support review before the Magistrate.

Reprimand was also imposed in the case of In re Farrar, PRB Decision
No.82 (Nov. 2005). In that case, the attorney failed to contact the
client about a decision on an appeal unfavorable to the client. There was
the potential for actual injury, and the only reason that the client did not
suffer injury was that the attorney made him whole on a judgment for interest
and attorney’s fees.

In comparing the facts of the present case to those cited above, we find that
the neglect and failure to communicate was total, and Respondent did no work on the Estate during the time he had the file.
It was of a long duration, slightly more than four years from the time he
received the file until Mr. Carter took over. There were no substantial
mitigating factors, such as the Respondent’s medical problems evident in
Decision No. 137. While the deaths of Respondent’s father and
grandfather may have had some effect, there is nothing in the facts to indicate
that this was a cause of more than the initial delay, and we do not find it to
be a mitigating factor. ABA Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions §9.32(c). Nor do we find the flood in
Respondent’s basement to be a mitigating factor, since it happened after Mr.
Carter had asked for the file.

While Respondent’s
relative inexperience in the practice of law -- three years at

the
time he received the file -- may be considered a mitigating factor in some
circumstances, we give it little weight here. ABA
Standards §9.32(f). The need to complete in a timely fashion
work one has been retained to do for a client, and the need to maintain contact
with one’s clients, are basic to the attorney-client
relationship. A complete failure to do so cannot be excused by relative
inexperience.

In accepting the
recommendation for public reprimand rather than admonition, we are persuaded
that, considering all the relevant factors, the more serious sanction is
warranted. It appears that Respondent made no meaningful effort to do the
work he had been retained to perform, and, despite numerous requests, he failed
to communicate with the client, the Court and the attorney seeking to complete
the work. In addition, there are no mitigating factors that would
persuade us to reduce the sanction.

Order

Based upon the foregoing, we order that Respondent William M. MaGill be PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED for violation of Rule 1.3
and Rule 1.4(a) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct in effect prior to
September 1, 2009, and Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a)(3), and Rule 1.4(a)(4) in effect
thereafter.